The G37 pulled a 13.5 second 1/4 mile, kind of like the Type R of today. The Honda? It would still be gasping for air. More impressive was the handling at 0.91....Again, this Accord would be toast. The G37 was the only vehicle that could compete with the BMW 335i at that time. As a matter of fact, the performance of that almost 10 year vehicle is about the same as the standard Q50 Twin Turbo V6 of today....and look Ma', NO TURBOS!

The G37 pulled a 13.5 second 1/4 mile, kind of like the Type R of today. The Honda? It would still be gasping for air. More impressive was the handling at 0.91....Again, this Accord would be toast. The G37 was the only vehicle that could compete with the BMW 335i at that time. As a matter of fact, the performance of that almost 10 year vehicle is about the same as the standard Q50 Twin Turbo V6 of today....and look Ma', NO TURBOS!

The G37 was more of a 328 competitor. I test drove both. I ended up with the G37 because of the value and reliability. It certainly can hold its own even today, but its 1/4 time is 14 sec, 13.5 was an anomaly.

The G37 pulled a 13.5 second 1/4 mile, kind of like the Type R of today. The Honda? It would still be gasping for air. More impressive was the handling at 0.91....Again, this Accord would be toast. The G37 was the only vehicle that could compete with the BMW 335i at that time. As a matter of fact, the performance of that almost 10 year vehicle is about the same as the standard Q50 Twin Turbo V6 of today....and look Ma', NO TURBOS!

The G37 pulled a 13.5 second 1/4 mile, kind of like the Type R of today. The Honda? It would still be gasping for air. More impressive was the handling at 0.91....Again, this Accord would be toast. The G37 was the only vehicle that could compete with the BMW 335i at that time. As a matter of fact, the performance of that almost 10 year vehicle is about the same as the standard Q50 Twin Turbo V6 of today....and look Ma', NO TURBOS!

Yes, the G37 was the closest, if not even in, performance competition the 335i had. What made it so crazy was the fact that it had no turbos, the difference was in the displacement of their V6s.

Regarding tire and materials, a lot has happened since 2009, you know.....If both the Accord and the G37 had the same tires.....with an almost 10 year difference in suspension technology, what would happen?

Yes, the G37 was the closest, if not even in, performance competition the 335i had. What made it so crazy was the fact that it had no turbos, the difference was in the displacement of their V6s.

Regarding tire and materials, a lot has happened since 2009, you know.....If both the Accord and the G37 had the same tires.....with an almost 10 year difference in suspension technology, what would happen?

The G37 was an amazing car for its time, that's why I bought it. Regardless, the E90 wipes the floor with it in real life. On paper, the G37 beats the 328, but it is really on par overall. It is no match to the 335.

Highly suspect numbers there. I've never seen a 370Z do 0 to 60 MPH under 5 seconds. More like 5.4 seconds. Meaning quarter mile time over 14 seconds. The original G35 was quite ugly too. G37 was an improvement.

Nissan/Renault? Match made in heaven. Just like Chrysler/Fiat. Relevance seems to be fleeting in both cases.

The G37 pulled a 13.5 second 1/4 mile, kind of like the Type R of today. The Honda? It would still be gasping for air. More impressive was the handling at 0.91....Again, this Accord would be toast. The G37 was the only vehicle that could compete with the BMW 335i at that time. As a matter of fact, the performance of that almost 10 year vehicle is about the same as the standard Q50 Twin Turbo V6 of today....and look Ma', NO TURBOS! https://www.motortrend.com/cars/infiniti/g37/2009/2008-infiniti-g37-sedan-test/

The G37's fuel economy is poor by this Accord's standards and the Nissan 3.7 V6 is about as refined in terms of noise, harshness and vibration as a 1967 International Harvester School Bus Engine.

Also, the G37 stickered for $41,000 in 2009, which equates to $63,770 today per the official US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculator:

The G37 was an amazing car for its time, that's why I bought it. Regardless, the E90 wipes the floor with it in real life. On paper, the G37 beats the 328, but it is really on par overall. It is no match to the 335.

The G37's engine was haunted by well documented poor noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) issues.

I drove two of them when I owned a then new 2008 Acura TL Type S and had recently driven two Toyotas powered by their 3.5 liter V6.

While the G37s were admittedly faster, their engines paled in comparison to the Acura and Toyotas in terms of NVH characteristics. Not even close.

I remember in the 80s through perhaps the early aughts Honda was really at the forefront of sophisticated design. By that I mean their cars were never dramatic, sexy, or ostentatious, but were so classy looking and unmistakably Honda.

I think they've lost their way. Their reputation for quality has taken a hit--seemingly deservedly so--and their design language is highly questionable. The last Accord was a pleasant enough design, but did show signs of being too derivative of previous Accords, and I think Honda was right that that look had run its course. But this new look simply doesn't resonate with me. It doesn't look like a Honda. The face reminds me of a Cylon Centurian from the late '70s Battlestar Galactica.

Honda may be changing what the Honda look is, and that's their right. But that doesn't mean long-time loyalists like myself have to like it.

I was a big Honda fan ('87 VFR 700 Interceptor), Acura ('94 Integra, '04 TSX), but felt Honda/Acura lost its way after the 2011 Fukishima meltdown. That's why I migrated to Mercedes-Benz in 2014 (E550 4Matic) for an extravagant retirement present to myself. If the 2018 Accord had been available in 2013, it would have been in the mix.

trouble free under warranty isn't quite the same as reliable. Lets see how the turbo 4 and the 10 speed auto hold up. replacing that 10 speed is going to be shockingly expensive(12-15k?) so lets see how well it holds up.

The turbo 4 has been used by Honda for a few years now. I don't think replacing the 10AT would cost anywhere close to that much. That's like supercar territory. It's a their bread and butter transmission.

trouble free under warranty isn't quite the same as reliable. Lets see how the turbo 4 and the 10 speed auto hold up. replacing that 10 speed is going to be shockingly expensive(12-15k?) so lets see how well it holds up.

Why oh why can't they put a bigger fuel tank in these cars? 14 gallons? That's woefully small. I'd like to get more than 400 miles out of a tank before filling up (I'm talking practical miles, not the 440 they reference which would mean literally draining the tank).

My 2006 Accord had a 17 gallon tank and I could easily do 500 miles between fill-ups. My current Audi A6 has a 22 gallon tank and on a good hwy day, 600 miles is attainable.

Why oh why can't they put a bigger fuel tank in these cars? 14 gallons? That's woefully small. I'd like to get more than 400 miles out of a tank before filling up (I'm talking practical miles, not the 440 they reference which would mean literally draining the tank). My 2006 Accord had a 17 gallon tank and I could easily do 500 miles between fill-ups. My current Audi A6 has a 22 gallon tank and on a good hwy day, 600 miles is attainable.

I very consistently get in the 475 to 500 range with my 14 Accord, (2.4 CVT), but most of my driving is rural highway where I'm usually averaging 39 to 42 MPG. My big gripe is on my recently purchased 17 CRV which has the same 12 gallon tank as the Civic. Ridiculous!

The increased fuel economy means a smaller tank, you would achieve the same range. My Civic has a 12.4 gallon tank. My old Saturn had a 13.3 gallon tank, but the Civic still goes farther on a gallon of gas than the Saturn did. (31/41 Civic 21/29 Saturn)

The increased fuel economy means a smaller tank, you would achieve the same range. My Civic has a 12.4 gallon tank. My old Saturn had a 13.3 gallon tank, but the Civic still goes farther on a gallon of gas than the Saturn did. (31/41 Civic 21/29 Saturn)

Did you adjust those EPA ratings to the modern standard, as depicted here?

I very consistently get in the 475 to 500 range with my 14 Accord, (2.4 CVT), but most of my driving is rural highway where I'm usually averaging 39 to 42 MPG. My big gripe is on my recently purchased 17 CRV which has the same 12 gallon tank as the Civic. Ridiculous!

I've been an Accord owner since 1999 and each model has significantly improved safety, ride, dependability, and MPG. I did skip the 08-12 generation which I considered "big & bloated" but returned in 14 which has been my Accord to date. The newest generation has taken a bit for me to get used to but, after seeing a lot of them on the road, I've come to appreciate the styling. With America's SUV habit, it is a shame that the sales numbers do not reflect just how good this new model really is although I hated to see Honda drop the venerable 2.4 engine from the Accord.